• concise 250-300 words (word count excludes quoted material)
• states clearly why Position 1 or Position 2 ‘won’ the trial
• use at least one piece of textual support that was key to the winning argument
Was the following statement PROVED OR DISPROVED in the trial?
“The world and everything in it is unplanned accident, existence is meaningless; the past is irrelevant; nothing matters.”
Verdict. Position two won the trial. Reasons: 1. cross examination
2. humans vs. god
3. cooperation
As a judge, I believe that position two won the trial, disproving "The world and everything in it is unplanned accident, ,existence is meaningless; the past is irrelevant; nothing matters." Position two did a fairly good job in listening to position one's witnesses and pointing out the mistakes that they have made. They might seemed to ask leading questions, however there were no objection made from position one which was a big mistake. Leading questions and repetitive questions did confuse the witnesses from position one, but those confusions told that the witnesses don't have a strong argument that can support them through the cross examination. Despite of the quality of the questions, witnesses from position one should have clearly stated what they meant by the words that they have said. For example, Dragon 1, myself was really confused by the leading questions that the lawyers from position two were asking. Dragon one seemed that he did not grasp the idea or the purpose of the question and kept repeating his statement, showing weaknesses. Moreover, regardless of the quality, it was by mistake that position two had a longer time in cross examination. The total of four minutes of speaking for witnesses in position two that position one was promised, was, indeed, not kept. For the dragons, which only two students have been assigned to do, should have had total of 8 minutes instead of 12. Considering that all the witnesses from position two had only 4 minutes to speak, they had little time targeted for the cross examination. While they had less time, the dragons had 4 extra minutes being vulnerable to the leading questions from position two (If 4 min. per person, considering that there were two dragons should have had 8 minutes of witness testimony). Not that the judge blames the mistake in timing, it was just one of the factors of position two having more opportunities to verbally attack the witnesses in position one.
In addition, the point this judge want to make is that humans are too ignorant to understand the true meanings, the philosophy of the dragon. Humans who are living in a confined world seemed to be chaotic as the dragons revealed the truth. It is just the matter of the ability to see the future, to live long, and to see all things of the dragon that men don't consist of. Men had strong beliefs in the shaper and the existence in purpose of life, but they should have listened carefully to what the dragon has said in his witness testimony. It seemed like position two had no idea what the dragon was talking about, just a story full of lies that they never have thought about. In the matter between god-like creatures versus the humans, sleight advantage was given for the men, who could have argued all they want when the dragon sees that it is truly nonsense.
Lastly, I personally think that the lawyers in position two had a better cooperation in cross examination, having a real discussion going on within themselves. They helped each other to find a better question to ask the opposing witness, which was good. Even though they didn't point out some contradicting ideas that position one witness had said (e.g. Dragon two stating that there are purpose in life). Nonetheless, the cooperation that the lawyers for humans (position one) showed was outstanding.
Therefore, I (judge) would like to say that position two had disproved the topic "The world and everything in it is unplanned accident, ,existence is meaningless; the past is irrelevant; nothing matters." Thank you.
• states clearly why Position 1 or Position 2 ‘won’ the trial
• use at least one piece of textual support that was key to the winning argument
Was the following statement PROVED OR DISPROVED in the trial?
“The world and everything in it is unplanned accident, existence is meaningless; the past is irrelevant; nothing matters.”
Verdict. Position two won the trial.
Reasons:
1. cross examination
2. humans vs. god
3. cooperation
As a judge, I believe that position two won the trial, disproving "The world and everything in it is unplanned accident, ,existence is meaningless; the past is irrelevant; nothing matters." Position two did a fairly good job in listening to position one's witnesses and pointing out the mistakes that they have made. They might seemed to ask leading questions, however there were no objection made from position one which was a big mistake. Leading questions and repetitive questions did confuse the witnesses from position one, but those confusions told that the witnesses don't have a strong argument that can support them through the cross examination. Despite of the quality of the questions, witnesses from position one should have clearly stated what they meant by the words that they have said. For example, Dragon 1, myself was really confused by the leading questions that the lawyers from position two were asking. Dragon one seemed that he did not grasp the idea or the purpose of the question and kept repeating his statement, showing weaknesses. Moreover, regardless of the quality, it was by mistake that position two had a longer time in cross examination. The total of four minutes of speaking for witnesses in position two that position one was promised, was, indeed, not kept. For the dragons, which only two students have been assigned to do, should have had total of 8 minutes instead of 12. Considering that all the witnesses from position two had only 4 minutes to speak, they had little time targeted for the cross examination. While they had less time, the dragons had 4 extra minutes being vulnerable to the leading questions from position two (If 4 min. per person, considering that there were two dragons should have had 8 minutes of witness testimony). Not that the judge blames the mistake in timing, it was just one of the factors of position two having more opportunities to verbally attack the witnesses in position one.
In addition, the point this judge want to make is that humans are too ignorant to understand the true meanings, the philosophy of the dragon. Humans who are living in a confined world seemed to be chaotic as the dragons revealed the truth. It is just the matter of the ability to see the future, to live long, and to see all things of the dragon that men don't consist of. Men had strong beliefs in the shaper and the existence in purpose of life, but they should have listened carefully to what the dragon has said in his witness testimony. It seemed like position two had no idea what the dragon was talking about, just a story full of lies that they never have thought about. In the matter between god-like creatures versus the humans, sleight advantage was given for the men, who could have argued all they want when the dragon sees that it is truly nonsense.
Lastly, I personally think that the lawyers in position two had a better cooperation in cross examination, having a real discussion going on within themselves. They helped each other to find a better question to ask the opposing witness, which was good. Even though they didn't point out some contradicting ideas that position one witness had said (e.g. Dragon two stating that there are purpose in life). Nonetheless, the cooperation that the lawyers for humans (position one) showed was outstanding.
Therefore, I (judge) would like to say that position two had disproved the topic "The world and everything in it is unplanned accident, ,existence is meaningless; the past is irrelevant; nothing matters." Thank you.